GARDEN SILK MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. VASDEV MOTWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed by M/s Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. (a Company registered under the Companies Act) assails the correctness of an order passed by Smt. Manju Goel, Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, on May 18, 1985 whereby appeal filed by respondent herein, against dismissal of an application under Order, 39 Rules 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure by the Subordinate Judge, was allowed.

(2.) The facts in so far as are material for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner claimed to be owner of the registered trade mark "Garden" with distinctive designs of a flower and they manufacture Sarees with the said trade name, popularly known as 'Garden Sarees'. Respondent, Vasdev Motwani as sole proprietor of M/s Vasdev Brothers periodically organises exhibition-cum-sale of what purports to be 'Garden Sarees' as part of his business activities which sale is generally held at Hotel Janpath, New Delhi. Apprehending that the advertisement issued/publicity made by the respondent in connection with the sale organised by him at Hotel Janpath, New Delhi, was likely to create an impression in the general public that the sales were organised or authorised by the Garden Silk Mills; namely,fthe petitioner herein, they inserted public notice in various news papers in the nature of a public disclaimer of the sales held at Hotel Janpath adding that these are neither conducted nor organised by the Garden Silk Mills and .that the Garden Silk Mills took no responsibility for the products sold there and that the buyers would be making purchases at their own risk and they be not misled by such Sales and that the.Garden' did not guarantee the quality of the purchases made at the said Sales.

(3.) It appears that these public notices appeared in various news papers during the month of June, July and September, 1983. Apparently the respondent had been organising the exhibition-cum-sale at Hotel Janpatb in or about the same period. Feeling aggrieved by the contents and tenor as well as manner of publication of these advertisements, he filed a suit against M/s Garden Silk Mills P. Ltd., petitioner herein, and its Managing Director seeking issuance of perpetual injunction restraining them from going on with public notices/advertisements of tbe type annexed with the plaint as Schedule thereto, or in any other manner doing any such act publicly which was likely to adversely affect tbe business interest of the plaintiff, or his reputation as a businessman. He categorically pleaded that he had been purchasing, over the years, goods manufactured by the aforesaid company direct or through their authorised distributors/dealers worth lacs. and has been holding the exhibition-cum-sale of the bona fide purchased goods, and that the defendant had wrongly and with a view to pressurise him into acceding to their demand for additional purchases of their goods; had resorted to this device of issuance of public advertisements which cast aspersions on his honesty as businessman, and also suggest that be was surreptitiously dealing with goods which were not genuine products of the Garden Silk Mills, and that this has resulted in fall in his sales as well as brought him into disrepute.